As its original Latin root literally suggests, a congressional subpoena demands compliance "subject to the penalties of law." Nonetheless, the
Constitution says plainly that the president "shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States," even including high treason. Failure to comply with a congressional
subpoena is thus an offense that the president can excuse. So, if some individuals refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena, the president has the power to excuse them from any and all penalties
of law ordinarily attached to such refusals.

Under the U.S. Constitution, therefore, "executive privilege" is not a matter of judicial or even congressional practice and tradition. It is the plain and simple consequence of the Constitution's words, which
are transparently clear. They become even clearer as one ponders the fact that the subpoena's power relies, for its effect, on the very penalties the president has the authority to preclude.

One might argue, of course, that the pardoning power is logically inherent in executive power at the highest level. For, by definition, the highest power has no superior. So, if the chief executive declines to
enforce the law against this or that person, who has the power to arrest his dereliction?

However, the framers of the U.S. Constitution accepted the premise that no merely human executive could claim to be in that supreme position of power – only Almighty God. They therefore
accepted the premise that people abused by violations of God-endowed right may appeal to His goodwill, and by means of their aggregated forces, sustain that appeal in fact, and by the grace of God, to
the best of their ability. This is what Americans successfully did against the government of Great Britain's king. Thereafter, they sought to establish a national government duly dependent on the
responsible will of the American people, a republican government that would militate against the likelihood that even their well justified grievances against the government of the United States would be the
cause for violent conflict and war.

That is the whole point of periodic elections in which the conflicting testimony of words and reasoning terminates in a decisive battle, using "ballots, not bullets." But unlike the British constitution,
which had failed the founders on this point, under the U.S. Constitution even the highest executive authority is subject to such elections. Even with this preliminary check against abuses of the highest
executive power, however, sudden emergencies may arise, demanding that equally sudden accretions of power be applied in response to them. Such emergencies may, in extremis, require actions
that cross the boundaries of laws, including the Constitution. Given the experience of our times, however, it's obvious that such emergencies may be prolonged (by contrivance or purposeful dereliction) to
facilitate usurpations of power by tyrannically minded individuals or parties. Communist ideologues like Saul Alinsky see this exploitation of crisis to advance dictatorship almost as an ideological duty.

If the president of the United States had to stand for election every two years, like a member of the House, this might provide a check against such abuses. But it would also aggravate the shortsighted
electoral preoccupations that some already see as fatally damaging to any president's ability to devise and sustain a coherent administration of national policy. Election campaigns are, as it were, a
substitute for war. So, perpetual campaigning has effects like those of perpetual war. Add things like the now persistent threat of terrorist attack, and even people not inclined to accept Alinsky's imperative
must find themselves sorely tempted to surrender to it, just to "get things done."

All this gives more point than ever to the maxim that "eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty." Where tyrannical abuse of executive power is a persistent temptation, periodic elections may
prove inadequate to inform and sustain such vigilance. As the need for it is an everyday affair, the readiness to meet that need must be equally routine. I believe it to be a token of God's Providential
goodwill toward America's self-government that the U.S. Constitution includes provisions for undertaking the impeachment of even the highest officials of the U.S. government. These provisions seem exactly suited to
providing the framework, and securing the motives, for such vigilance. As Hamilton wrote, "...this ought...to be the case, as the supposition of the connivance of the Chief Magistrate ought not to be entirely
excluded."

Right now, this supposition haunts everything that is said or written about the possibility that Russia contrived to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. This includes the brouhaha over possible use
or abuse of the shield of "executive privilege." But where matters touch upon the possible "connivance of the Chief Magistrate" in some effort to subvert the choice of the American people, the Constitution
plainly removes the pardoning power that is the logical ground of that "executive privilege." It does so by singularly and explicitly excepting "cases of impeachment" from the purview of the chief
executive's pardoning power.

But cases of impeachment can only be opened, investigated, and brought to a vote (or not) by members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Present talk about "executive privilege" makes sense only
because the investigation of accusations against the president and/or his associates is being conducted by members of the U.S. Senate, rather than the House. This is a clear perversion of the
Constitutional process for dealing with accusations of presidential malfeasance. This lack of proper constitutional authority gives the whole spectacle in the U.S. Senate an air of fakery. Is it an accident
that this perversion gives presumed initiative to the body that is, at present, more disposed by its composition to fan the damp embers of allegation, so as to hamper President Trump's administration with
the smoke, where no actual fire seems likely to make an appearance?

What does it say about House Speaker Paul Ryan and the GOP leadership in the U.S. House, when they tolerate the Senate's blatant usurpation of their chamber's constitutional prerogative and duty? If
these House leaders are not conniving with the anti-Trump tendencies of the U.S. Senate, why add the appearance of constitutional dereliction to the appearance of doing so? Instead, they should
conduct a competent, objective investigation behind a resolution that opens a case of impeachment so a bill can be fairly voted up or down, or simply judged to be unwarranted. No law instituting some
"special counsel," or other expedient, supersedes the Constitution's allocation of exclusive jurisdiction. If the GOP majority takes pains to institute a framework for investigation that justly represents the
permanent vigilance of the whole American people, their actions will remove any excuse but factional fury for continuing to agitate charges that must remain specious, pending the investigation's outcome.

The GOP's confidence in the outcome would thus appear to be as secure as their confidence in the president's clear and emphatic rejection of the charges. But in addition to showing their confidence in
the president's word, their pursuit of their constitutional duty would demonstrate their determination to let no partisan motives supersede the oath of office that requires them to give higher priority to
the words of the U.S. Constitution.

Alan Keyes

Dr. Keyes holds the distinction of being the only person ever to run against Barack Obama in a truly contested election – one featuring authentic moral conservatism vs. progressive liberalism – when they challenged each other for the open U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004... (more)

Dr. Keyes holds the distinction of being the only person ever to run against Barack Obama in a truly contested election – one featuring authentic moral conservatism vs. progressive liberalism – when they challenged each other for the open U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004.

During the Reagan years, Keyes was the highest-ranking black appointee in the Reagan Administration, serving as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations and as Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

He ran for president in 1996, 2000, and 2008, and was a Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Maryland in 1988 and 1992, in addition to his 2004 candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Illinois.

He holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory.

His basic philosophy can best be described as "Declarationism" – since he relies on the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence to define the premises on which our country was founded, and to which it must remain committed if it is to survive. To Dr. Keyes, the Constitution itself cannot be faithfully interpreted, understood, or applied apart from the divinely-premised principles of the Declaration.

When Keyes ran for president in 2000, the media generally considered him the winner of the Republican primary debates, due to the persuasive eloquence of his defense of the unborn, opposition to unfair taxation, advocacy of school choice, promotion of family values, and focus on what he called "America's moral crisis." As a result, he became the host of MSNBC-TV's "Alan Keyes Is Making Sense" in 2002.

He is best known for thrusting the evil of abortion – which he considers our nation's "greatest moral challenge" – into the national spotlight.

Keyes is also a strong supporter of Israel, and in 2002 he was flown by the Israeli government to the Holy Land to receive an award for his staunch defense of Israel in the media. He is the only American ever to receive such an honor from the State of Israel.

When Keyes ran against Obama for the Senate in 2004, he did so because he was incensed the Democrat "community organizer" refused to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois on several occasions – a measure approved not long afterward by the U.S. Senate, 100 to 0.

Alan is available to address interested venues of students, educators, civic groups, professional organizations, public servants, political advocates, churches, and others who are interested in preserving our nation's institutions of liberty.

To arrange a speech or special appearance by Dr. Keyes, you can email him at: alan@<NOSPAM>loyaltoliberty.com.